Mainly I wanted to test out the reliable memory technology features in
5.5. I had a strange problem with one of my hosts shutting down under
heavy load and was curious if it would help.
I agree reverting back to 5.1 is probably best. I guess I'm just
wondering if I could get more out of the hardware by using a different
product. It's been a while since I tried oVirt or eucalyptus. I think
they were still in beta last time I tried them out.
On 10/18/2013 12:02 PM, Bret McHone wrote:
> Was there a driving force that made you go from 5.1 to 5.5? If it was
> just because there was a new version I would say just to roll back to
> 5.1 and stick with that if you already have established business
> practices and you know it works.
>> -Bret
>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Matt Keys wrote:
>>> Yeah yeah... I know it's outdated/unsupported but winxp still serves
>> me well as a small vm to run stuff on that I can't in my usual linux
>> environment, e.g. vsphere client. It was quick 'n easy to install /
>> reinstall and you didn't have to contact MS for a new key each time.
>> From time to time I need to show one of our engineers or software
>> devs a particular bug or configuration scenario and this was the
>> best/most flexible way I found to accomplish that. I'd just
>> temporarily poke a hole for them in the firewall for rdp and they'd
>> connect directly to the winxp vm and launch the vsphere client from
>> there. 5.5 has totally screwed that plan up...
>>>> I'm thinking about just blowing away one of the esxi hosts and
>> standing up kvm, that way they could just ssh in with x forwarding
>> and launch virt-manager if they want/need to. The downside being
>> virt-manager doesn't have all the snazzy features yet. Maybe it's
>> time to give eucalyptus or oVirt another shot.
>>>> On 10/18/2013 11:09 AM, Nick Smith wrote:
>>> First, why are you running windows xp? ;-)
>>> If microsoft is dropping it, why would anyone else still support it?
>>> Second, the snazzy features that you wont see in the real client you
>>> wouldnt see anyway without a license.
>>> They will always have the hypervisor for free, vsphere/vcenter comes
>>> in when you need centralized management of all your hosts. (and lots
>>> of other features)
>>> They are headed in the web client direction and ive heard that they
>>> will eventually do away with the standard client (which i personally
>>> hate, the web client is slow) and there are plugins that arent ready
>>> for the web client yet, update manager is one of them.
>>>>>> I would assume if they ever discontinue the standard client, they
>>> would roll out a web client version for the free hypervisor, you
>>> have to have some way to manage your host. I dont see that as
>>> pushing people to buy vsphere/vcenter.
>>> They people that need its features will buy it anyway, or already
>>> have it.
>>>>>> They also just raised the host/vm restrictions in 5.5 for the linux
>>> vcenter server appliance which runs postgres.
>>> (no need for more MS and SQL licenses yay!)
>>>http://www.yellow-bricks.com/2013/08/26/vsphere-5-5-nuggets-vcenter-server-appliance-limitations-lifted/>>>>>> I cant comment on vmware reps, ive never spoken to one.
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Matt Keys <mk6032 at yahoo.com>>> <mailto:mk6032 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> Just a heads up that I discovered winxp 32 bit isn't compatible
>>> with the new vsphere 5.5 client. I'm pretty sure it's because of
>>>http://kb.vmware.com/kb/2049143 , but that refers to the real
>>> vsphere server whereas I'm connecting at the host level with the
>>> client. This is the error I get :
>>>http://www.mattkeys.net/winxp32_esxi55.png . The same machine
>>> using 5.1 client worked just fine, there are no
>>> network/firewall/av issues to note. My clients installed on Win
>>> 7 and 8 machines are working fine. Also note the "you won't see
>>> all the new snazzy features of 5.5 with the real client"
>>> message. It seems like they're pushing you to the web client,
>>> which requires a vsphere server (standard/enterprise) license
>>> does it not?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chugalug.org/pipermail/chugalug/attachments/20131018/e6c32b32/attachment.html>